vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,857
- 16,349
You Can Change Each Award Once
- Thread starter Professor What
- Start date
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
In 2001 the Lady Byng was decided by a mere 4 points, Sakic edging out Lidstrom despite having several less 1st place votes and more penalty minutes. The rarity of defensemen considered for this award (none since Red Kelly in 1954) cost him some 2nd and 3rd place votes for sure.
I do know the Pearson was a bit different back then than it is today, yes. It's still a bit weird looking back and seeing such obvious seasons ignored.
For the Conn Smythe - you're right I meant 87 not 88, typo.
I agree with you on 83 - I mean I still think he could have/should have won - but being swept in finals didn't help a lot, and especially his low production (4 points in 4 games, which is bad for Gretzky). I think out of the 3 years I listed, it's the one I'm most understanding of him not winning. If he had scored more in the finals, even in a sweep, I'd say differently though.
84 - he should have won. Messier is great - but this was all about 'narrative'. Gretzky is the best and most valuable player for the Oilers in 84. You simply can't convince me otherwise, even though Messier played a very key role. Gretzky had most points in playoffs (including 9 more than Messier) and most points + goals in finals.
87 - I wasn't watching then, but I still don't get the Hextall win. Was he really that good? It doesn't seem so. It seems more like a "typical decent run by a #1 goalie who makes the final", and much less in the mold of a Giguere 2003 run, worthy of a smythe in a losing cause. Giguere won in a losing cause, and you can probably argue it's a top 5 goalie run of all-time (heck, maybe even #1). Is Hextall's run even a top 10 run of all time for a goalie? Top 20? I just don't really get it.
But what bothers me even more is that if you change Wayne Gretzky's name in the 1987 playoffs to Joe Smith, he 100% wins the Conn Smythe. Led playoffs in points by 6, 11 points in finals (2 more than anyone else)....he only didn't win because he was being held to too high a standard (ie his own previous 85 smythe). He was the best and most valuable player in the 1987 playoffs - and he should have won, it should be that simple.
To make a parallel to 87 - I was happy to see Sidney Crosby win the Smythe in 2017. Yeah the 2016 one has gotten enough press already - not the strongest smythe ever in a weaker year of candidates - but it would have been easy for voters in 2017 to say "well, he already got his smythe. Crosby is great, but he can do better as Crosby, so let's give it to someone else". No - instead, he was the best player (but not by a huge gap), and they voted for him accordingly, even if it meant him having 2 smythes in a row, they didn't try to hold him to a higher standard due to his name/previous win. I hate those 'narrative' political votes. MVP is MVP - keep it simple, Gretzky should have won in 1987.
If Pens had somehow won the cup in 93 with their powerhouse of a team - I wonder if they'd have tried to come up with a narrative to keep a 3rd smythe away from Lemieux (assuming he would be the obvious choice, which seems likely).
The Panther
Registered User
The 1987 narrative (I was around then, but I was still a little kid) was basically "Hextall -- the heroic, rookie goaltender foils the mighty Oilers' offence!" I mean, there was some truth to it, but also not a whole lot...
For one thing, no one will convince me that Hextall was any better than Grant Fuhr in the Finals, or, really, in the '87 playoffs. But, fair enough, Hextall was probably more valuable to his team.
But this whole narrative of "Hextall held the Flyers in against the mighty Oilers" kind of falls apart when you look at the fact that Philly was #1 overall in 1985 (with Lindbergh) and #2 overall in 1986 (with Froese). In 1987, after a hot start, they fell off badly in the second half and were not as strong as the two preceding seasons with two goalies who weren't Hextall. (The fact that Philly could have a 110-point season with their back-up as the new #1 guy sort of makes Hextall's heroics feel a little suspect.)
But Hextall was good. I mean, I can't deny it.
For one thing, no one will convince me that Hextall was any better than Grant Fuhr in the Finals, or, really, in the '87 playoffs. But, fair enough, Hextall was probably more valuable to his team.
But this whole narrative of "Hextall held the Flyers in against the mighty Oilers" kind of falls apart when you look at the fact that Philly was #1 overall in 1985 (with Lindbergh) and #2 overall in 1986 (with Froese). In 1987, after a hot start, they fell off badly in the second half and were not as strong as the two preceding seasons with two goalies who weren't Hextall. (The fact that Philly could have a 110-point season with their back-up as the new #1 guy sort of makes Hextall's heroics feel a little suspect.)
But Hextall was good. I mean, I can't deny it.
Hextall deserved it in '87, but absolutely it was in part a product of fantastic team defense (which is not a unique occurrence by any means).
If the Vezina was a goalie MVP award then I think Kelly Hrudey would have been more deserving that year. Or Mike Liut.
If the Vezina was a goalie MVP award then I think Kelly Hrudey would have been more deserving that year. Or Mike Liut.
Ill only do one.
99-00 Hart: Jagr. Prongers Hart is just totally random since it's almost never given to defencemen so I would correct that by giving it to the player being arguably most disrespected by the voters in history of the trophy. If you feel like Jagr played to few games(although I am sure McDavid would win it in a similiar scenario) just give to the highest scoring forward who played enough games
99-00 Hart: Jagr. Prongers Hart is just totally random since it's almost never given to defencemen so I would correct that by giving it to the player being arguably most disrespected by the voters in history of the trophy. If you feel like Jagr played to few games(although I am sure McDavid would win it in a similiar scenario) just give to the highest scoring forward who played enough games
Last edited:
Ill only do one.
99-00 Hart: Jagr. Prongers Hart is just totally random since it's almost never given to defencemen so I would correct that by giving it to the player being arguably most disrespected by the voters in history of the trophy. If you feel like Jagr played to few games(although I am sure McDavid would win it in a similiar scenario) just give to the highest scoring forward who played enough games
I agree with your sentiment and would have preferred Jagr too. Not sure about 'any other forward with enough games' though...like who? Pronger had a strong year - Jagr was just better. Honestly if not Jagr nor Pronger - may as well do Hasek again
As to the bolded and McDavid - honestly that's just a really bad example in my opinion. Because McDavid might be in the running with Jagr for 'most disrespected by Hart voters'. McDavid was really good in 2018 and 2020 and finished in 5th place - he deserved better. Even in 2019 - should probably have been 2nd behind Kucherov.
Hart voters haven't exactly been kind to McDavid
jigglysquishy
Registered User
If we include Stanley Cup into the mix, then the 99 Cup going to the Sabres is a contender.
Hasek gets his Conn Smythe and puts up one of the most dominating playoffs by a goalie in NHL history.
One of the strongest arguments for Roy over Hasek is playoff performance. Roy was top 3 playoff performers all time. Hasek was great, but doesn't have an 86 or 93.
I think the consensus becomes Hasek over Roy.
The Sharks winning in 2016 has a pretty significant impact on Joe Thornton's career. He would lose the label of playoff choker and would likely be retired now. Additionally, Crosby loses a Smythe.
Boston winning in 1990 gives a huge boost (and Smythe) to Bourque. We lose the iconic moment with Sakic though. The Oilers never win without Gretzky and I think his reputation grows ever more. Bourque likely gets more boosters above Lidstrom as well.
Hasek gets his Conn Smythe and puts up one of the most dominating playoffs by a goalie in NHL history.
One of the strongest arguments for Roy over Hasek is playoff performance. Roy was top 3 playoff performers all time. Hasek was great, but doesn't have an 86 or 93.
I think the consensus becomes Hasek over Roy.
The Sharks winning in 2016 has a pretty significant impact on Joe Thornton's career. He would lose the label of playoff choker and would likely be retired now. Additionally, Crosby loses a Smythe.
Boston winning in 1990 gives a huge boost (and Smythe) to Bourque. We lose the iconic moment with Sakic though. The Oilers never win without Gretzky and I think his reputation grows ever more. Bourque likely gets more boosters above Lidstrom as well.
Last edited:
buffalowing88
Registered User
I mean...i'd love to see that Cup shift hands in 99 but honestly we would have been in for it if the series goes back to Dallas for Game 7. That Stars team was so incredibly deep and had so many leaders. All Buffalo had was some sort of cool coaching from Ruff as an up-and-comer at the time and Hasek. We were just not a match. A win would have certainly shifted much of hockey history, however. Hasek definitely jumps into everyone's top-10, if not higher. Buffalo maybe becomes something different as well. They didn't just fall off the face of the planet after that season.
But in the end, Dallas had something like 8 different guys who would be or had been team captains on the roster along with a top-5 goalie. We would have needed a miracle to beat them.
buffalowing88
Registered User
Ill only do one.
99-00 Hart: Jagr. Prongers Hart is just totally random since it's almost never given to defencemen so I would correct that by giving it to the player being arguably most disrespected by the voters in history of the trophy. If you feel like Jagr played to few games(although I am sure McDavid would win it in a similiar scenario) just give to the highest scoring forward who played enough games
I'm torn on this. Did you watch much of the Blues games that year? Pronger was a force of nature. Weirdly, he may not have even been the best blueliner on that team but I didn't have an issue with it. He was just so dominant in so many facets and he was only barely hitting his mid-20s. Jagr was great, too, but Pronger was transcendent. He'd do it again from 05-10 and I just honestly don't remember a defenseman from that era being so impactful. Lidstrom was more consistent and subtle and Niedermayer was the better skater and a fluid player, but Pronger was something else.
The Panther
Registered User
It's interesting to ponder how it's such a game of luck at a certain degree of competitiveness. Hockey is such a sport of mistakes and randomness, sometimes.
About Gretzky's rep (if it needs inflating), imagine if:
-- The Oilers don't come back from 3-1 down to Winnipeg in 1990, or don't come back from 2-1 down to Chicago.
-- McSorley isn't called for an illegal stick with a minute left in game two, 1993 -- the Kings then hang on to win, and go back to L.A. up 2-0 in the series. Kings win the Cup in six, Gretzky wins a Cup in L.A. and another Conn Smythe.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,128
- 12,799
It's interesting to consider how flipping a Stanley Cup result could impact perception of a player, assuming that the relevant players play at the same level they had been. Probably a thread on its own. I'd have to think that Hull gets a nice boost from some if Chicago wins either of its 7 game finals in 1965 or 1971 and he presumably walks away with the Conn Smythe. I'd be interested in how Bure would be remembered if Vancouver had won its game 7 series in 1994 as well.
cupcrazyman
Stupid Sexy Flanders
Speaking of Stanley Cup, Leafs beat Kerry Fraser & The Kings in '93 in the Conference Final.
They then go on & beat the Habs in 7 in the Cup Final.
They then go on & beat the Habs in 7 in the Cup Final.
blundluntman
Registered User
- Jul 30, 2016
- 2,654
- 2,850
Vezina: 2002-03, Marty Turco
To be frank, Brodeur was gifted the trophy this year when you compare his .914 to Turco's .932. I genuinely don't understand how the voting committee ignores a gap like that.
Hart Trophy: 2017-18, Nathan Mackinnon
This is probably my most biased pick considering I don't really have any objective argument against Taylor winning it. I just think the award would mean more for Mackinnon's legacy when you take the backstory of that season into account
Conn Smythe: 2016-17, Matt Murray
Same sentiment as the Turco case. The trophy was given to Crosby to pad his legacy, his performance in the finals wasn't all that impressive although he was good defensively. Up until that year, goaltending was the elephant in the room for Pittsburgh, Murray was the final piece of the puzzle.
To be frank, Brodeur was gifted the trophy this year when you compare his .914 to Turco's .932. I genuinely don't understand how the voting committee ignores a gap like that.
Hart Trophy: 2017-18, Nathan Mackinnon
This is probably my most biased pick considering I don't really have any objective argument against Taylor winning it. I just think the award would mean more for Mackinnon's legacy when you take the backstory of that season into account
Conn Smythe: 2016-17, Matt Murray
Same sentiment as the Turco case. The trophy was given to Crosby to pad his legacy, his performance in the finals wasn't all that impressive although he was good defensively. Up until that year, goaltending was the elephant in the room for Pittsburgh, Murray was the final piece of the puzzle.
CokenoPepsi
Registered User
- Oct 28, 2016
- 4,912
- 2,364
Toews for Hart? I mean you could easily make a case he not even a top 2 player on his team.
In sticking with this I'd take the 2010 Smythe and give it to Kane who saved the Hawks multiple times that run that Toews could not match, but it a popularity award and Kane was hated then for his arrest
If you're going to change this award, it should go to McDavid, not MacKinnon.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Game 2 Milwaukee Admirals @ Texas Stars - Texas Stars leads series 1-0Wagers: 1Staked: $25.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Game 7 Toronto Maple Leafs @ Boston Bruins - Series tied 3-3Wagers: 21Staked: $203,630.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-